Virtual vigilantes expose paedophile ring

In a move that has been widely publicised and met with some praise, notorious “hacktivist” collective Anonymous last week exposed an underground child pornography Web site.

According to reports by the Telegraph, the Web site, dubbed “Lolita City”, was accessed via Tor, which advocates online anonymity and allows Internet users to conceal their identity.

In a forthright statement attributed to Anonymous, the Web site was fingered as being a portal for child abuse: “[The Web site] enables paedophiles to view innocent children, fuelling their issues and putting children at risk of abduction, molestation, rape and death.”

Last Tuesday, Anonymous disrupted and hacked into systems at the company accused of hosting Lolita City, obtaining the login details of more than 1 500 users. The virtual vigilante group subsequently published the usernames and other information of 1 589 members of the child pornography ring, who they say were trading in “kiddie porn” online.

In a statement by Anonymous, the group made no bones about the fact that they were out to get anyone who endorses child pornography. Lolita City, said Anonymous, was one of the largest child pornography Web sites to date, containing more than 100GB of child pornography.

“We will crash... any other server we find to contain, promote, or support child pornography.”

The statement added that Anonymous had discovered Lolita City via the Hidden Wiki, another underground Web site accessed via the Tor network, which “offers links to a host of other illegal services”.

Furthermore, the following post of demands was attributed to Anonymous. “Our demands are simple. Remove all child pornography content from your servers. Refuse to provide hosting services to any Web site dealing with child pornography. This statement is... aimed at everyone on the Internet. It does not matter who you are, if we find you to be hosting, promoting, or supporting child pornography, you will become a target.”

Anonymous said the group had asked the company accused of hosting Lolita City to remove the offensive material, but their request was not heeded.

While the online vigilantism was welcomed by many observers, some industry experts communicated ambivalence.

Graham Cluley, of the British security firm Sophos, says that while the group may have had good intentions, “take-downs of illegal Web sites and sharing networks should be done by the authorities, not Internet vigilantes”.

“When 'amateurs' attack there is always the risk that they are compromising an existing investigation, preventing the police from gathering the necessary evidence they require for a successful prosecution, or making it difficult to argue that evidence has not been corrupted by hackers.”

In response, one Twitter subscriber stated: “Graham Cluley: [the above comment] makes you look dumber than usual...” (sic)

Dominic White, consulting lead at SensePost Information Security, says he echoes Cluley's sentiments.

Craig Rosewarne, ISG Africa chairman, says that while no logical human being could argue that Anonymous' takedown of a child pornography site isn't a good thing, this kind of online vigilantism is a grey area. “Anonymous is like the Robin Hood of the Internet in some ways, and I think we all laud what it has done. The fact is, however, they are still outlaws and the good deed they have done doesn't justify the illegal nature of their activities.”

Rosewarne says the group, which has been involved in discrediting a number of large corporates, is feared and talented, and should use its vast capabilities to move to the “right side of the law.

“Thumbs up to them. I am glad they put their talent to good use in this case.”

Senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab, David Emm, says the nature of the child pornography exposed is indeterminate, albeit desirable. “One of the key things about this is that Anonymous, as the name suggests, is in the shadows. They are not a legitimate organisation and consequently one can never be 100% sure if the outcome was directly as a result of their activity, or if it was someone masquerading as Anonymous.”

Emm adds that the takedown is undeniably a good thing, but on the other hand, it is “not good when people effectively take the law into their own hands”.

He says it would be far more beneficial if hackers used their talent, together with legitimate law enforcement bodies, to bring offenders to book.

Meanwhile, the takedown of reviled child pornography perpetrators has been applauded by a number of parties, who expressed their approval via social media sites such as micro-blogging Web site Twitter and social networking Web site Facebook,

One Facebook member, whose post elicited a number of “likes”, said: “How cool is this? We need more people like this out there.” (sic)

Another said: “bout time someone does something about Child pornography, good on you Anon :)” (sic)

Twitter users were abuzz with praise for the online vigilante group: “Cool. Doing something constructive for a change!”

“Anonymous pwned a bunch of pedos; huzzah.” (sic)

“Finally hackers doing something good!” (sic)

“Please please please pray with me for justice to continue to be poured out through Anonymous' fight.” (sic)

“Bravo #Anonymous!” (sic)

“This is the kind of work #Anonymous does I can stand behind- great work, hope they all burn in hell.” (sic)

New media lawyer Paul Jacobson says the issue of hackers exposing paedophiles online is fraught with variables, which would make a legal case against the hackers for either defamation of character claims by those named, or the illegal nature of their activity, tricky.

“Although what the group did is technically illegal, it would be difficult to take legal action, because the members are not known. In real terms the court probably won't be able to find out who the hackers are, and if they do, they may just run into problems if they try to take them on.”

Jacobson says as far as defamation of character claims go, he doubts whether prosecutors would be sympathetic to complainants.

“While it is defamatory to say that a person is a paedophile, if it is true then it's justifiable. You would want to know if your neighbour posed a threat to your children.”

He adds that there is a legal clause that says an individual cannot approach the court with bloody hands. “So the court won't be sympathetic to known paedophiles claiming violation of their privacy.”

In a campaign the group of hacktivists is calling “Operation Darknet”, Anonymous has pledged to continue its attacks on child abuse Web sites.

The Anonymous campaign page can be viewed at www.facebook.com/operationdarknet.